Intelligent Desgn

The Case for Evolution Counterpoint?

Darwin is often credited with the theory of evolution, the idea that complex organisms have developed gradually over geologic time from simpler ones. What continued to elude Darwin, and the other naturalists of the time, was how transformation occurred. Darwin’s great contribution to science was that he solved this mystery of how and why evolution occurred. The answer, which he called natural selection, finally occurred to him in 1839. The essence of the idea is that those individuals born with characteristics that make them best suited for their environment are the ones most likely to survive, and most likely to successfully produce offspring. By 1859, Darwin was an eminent scientist, when he published his book, The Origin of Species.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1)Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2)Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3)Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time.

From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.

4)In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.

5)Much of this variation is heritable.

Probably all organic beings, which have ever lived on this earth, have descended from some one primordial life form (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species).

In 1925, Tennessee adopted a law that made it a crime for anypublic-school teacher to “teach any theory that denies the storyof divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teachinstead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

The First Amendment prohibits the state from establishing religion. Arkansas attempted tomeet these tests when it enacted a 1981 law that did not requireany direct teaching of the Bible, but only that “public schools. . . give balanced treatment to creation-scienceand to evolution-science.” In 1982, Louisiana tried a similar “CreationismAct,” that reached to the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court decision ended the life of teaching creationism inthe public schools.

The first legal challenge to requiring the teaching of intelligentdesign with evolution involved the tiny Dover Area School District,in Pennsylvania, and the case was decided in December 2005.It involved two primary questions. First, is intelligent designa science (or is it just creationism under another name)? Andsecond, does requiring the teaching of intelligent design inscience classes amount to a governmental endorsement of religionor serve a religious purpose?

The Pennsylvania Judge’s strong opinion concludes with the acceptance of a non-binding precedence of a large body of adult’s acceptance of antievolutionteaching activity in the United States. The Judge surmised “there willundoubtedly be a wave of opinion that will feature yet another strategyto promote creationism by questioning evolution.”

I was a student of the 50’s and 60’s that saw first hand the changes that were being introduced in schoolbooks and curriculum. My class viewed the pond water, the one cell amoeba, dissected the frogs, and discussed Darwin’s evolution. Most adopted the viewpoints without question-after all it was science. The scientific community had refuted the flawed arguments for creationism, ithad failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, ithad not generated any peer-reviewed publications, and it hadnot been the subject of testing or research.

Of course, the theory of evolution cannot answer all questionsabout how life emerged or how the human brain developed, noris evolution even relevant to the question of where the originalmatter of the universe came from. I am reminded of this story about a scientist talking to God. The scientist says to God, “You know God I think I could create just as good a human as you can.” “You think so,” said God, “alright, why don’t you try.” So the scientist bent down on the ground and started scraping together some dirt. Then God said, “Wait a minute that’s my dirt! go get your own.”

A fellow sophomore high school student who had enthusiastically accepted the evolution theory turned to me after several minutes of discussion in class, “What do you think, don’t you agree with the evolution theory?”I paused and thought for a second, as I felt the peer pressure from the others listening near by. “I can agree with the basic idea of evolution of living things-plants, creatures-, but I can’t see the evolution of two of all things-male and female.” Everyone looked at me as if to say something, then just left biology for the next class. Nearly 50 years later, after all the changes, studies, and advancements in knowledge, that thought still lingers in my mind, and no one has yet answered.

Advertisements

About this web site

This web site is in consideration of articles of interest for which there is a "Counterpoint" view. I generally start from the view point that an article should stand on facts and rules of its basis. I welcome your response to the subjects that arise, or might be presented.
Continue reading about this web site.